Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
New Kit 18/19 season
Comments
-
Nice0
-
I don't mind it.0
-
The comparison between the two similar kits, the Viglen one and this one is interesting. In my view the old one, with the club badge standing out on a plain white background made it clear that it is Charlton, and Viglen did not diminish that.Henry Irving said:
Because you're the only one talking about the shirt destroying the identity of the club.seth plum said:
So there are a variety of comments, my one is one of many and I mention the centering of the badge, which has indeed been mentioned by others. Am I the only one talking bollocks on this thread, or is there a reason you single me out?Henry Irving said:
You do talk bollocks Seth, it's a shirt FFSseth plum said:The sponsors name dominates the badge because the badge is central now.
If the home shirt is on the same lines my personal opinion is that it is a diminution of our identity.
I wonder if it is actually a Charlton fan who signs off on this type of thing.
New third kitThe Red Robin said:Sunderland away first game I'm assuming we'll wear blue? Or is there a new third kit as well?
Lots of people like it, lots of others don't, your the only one blowing it so vastly out of proportion while missing, like most others it seems to be fair, the subtle nod to the protests. And yes, Hummel knew.
The new kit diminishes the club badge because it is central, and the background does not allow the club badge to stand out, the eye is drawn to the most dominant word which is BETDAQ.
If this point of view is blowing it 'vastly out of proportion' or 'bollocks' in your view then fine. I think my view is valid. You are choosing to personalise it, and maybe your mention of what Hummel knew is the clue. You have personal investment of your own, why would that be? Did you help to design or launch the kit?
I have been one of many to react to the kit, but I think your singling of me out from the rest is for spurious reasons.0 -
PS, show me where I wrote that the shirt is 'destroying' the identity of the club.0
-
Actually if you look at the badge on the viglen shirt, it's badge is really poorly done.seth plum said:
The comparison between the two similar kits, the Viglen one and this one is interesting. In my view the old one, with the club badge standing out on a plain white background made it clear that it is Charlton, and Viglen did not diminish that.Henry Irving said:
Because you're the only one talking about the shirt destroying the identity of the club.seth plum said:
So there are a variety of comments, my one is one of many and I mention the centering of the badge, which has indeed been mentioned by others. Am I the only one talking bollocks on this thread, or is there a reason you single me out?Henry Irving said:
You do talk bollocks Seth, it's a shirt FFSseth plum said:The sponsors name dominates the badge because the badge is central now.
If the home shirt is on the same lines my personal opinion is that it is a diminution of our identity.
I wonder if it is actually a Charlton fan who signs off on this type of thing.
New third kitThe Red Robin said:Sunderland away first game I'm assuming we'll wear blue? Or is there a new third kit as well?
Lots of people like it, lots of others don't, your the only one blowing it so vastly out of proportion while missing, like most others it seems to be fair, the subtle nod to the protests. And yes, Hummel knew.
The new kit diminishes the club badge because it is central, and the background does not allow the club badge to stand out, the eye is drawn to the most dominant word which is BETDAQ.
If this point of view is blowing it 'vastly out of proportion' or 'bollocks' in your view then fine. I think my view is valid. You are choosing to personalise it, and maybe your mention of what Hummel knew is the clue. You have personal investment of your own, why would that be? Did you help to design or launch the kit?
I have been one of many to react to the kit, but I think your singling of me out from the rest is for spurious reasons.
But it didn't diminish the identity of the club, then or now. Nor dors the 90s sponsors logo being a similar size to the 2018 logo.
You are, as covered end said, just desperate to find something new to moan about so picked on this inconsequential bollocks.
In doing so you missed that this is a black and white kit and Hummel knew that because, in part, I told them.
Like the supporters trust the museum was part of the consultation, not design, on the shirts. This was one of about six options.
But you are hardly clever for "guessing" that as there is bloody video.0 -
I really couldn't care less if the badge is central or not.1
-
Think that’s a bit of a stretch, or have I been whooshed! It’s black white and red.Henry Irving said:2 -
@seth plum
without trawling through the thread I think you said something along lines of 'I wonder if a Charlton fan even signed off on it' when we know the museum was involved in the consulting of the kit design.2 -
Black shorts, predominantly white shirt like in the cup final.Nug said:
Think that’s a bit of a stretch, or have I been whooshed! It’s black white and red.Henry Irving said:0 -
And the supporters trust and lots of others were consulted.MrOneLung said:@seth plum
without trawling through the thread I think you said something along lines of 'I wonder if a Charlton fan even signed off on it' when we know the museum was involved in the consulting of the kit design.
Actually, a good model for how the club should be consulting with fans.4 - Sponsored links:
-
Shame they didn't go for option B. I'd like to see a recount of the votes myself.Henry Irving said:
Black shorts, predominantly white shirt like in the cup final.Nug said:
Think that’s a bit of a stretch, or have I been whooshed! It’s black white and red.Henry Irving said:
14 -
Your attribution of my motives is wrong, so is covered end.Henry Irving said:
Actually if you look at the badge on the viglen shirt, it's badge is really poorly done.seth plum said:
The comparison between the two similar kits, the Viglen one and this one is interesting. In my view the old one, with the club badge standing out on a plain white background made it clear that it is Charlton, and Viglen did not diminish that.Henry Irving said:
Because you're the only one talking about the shirt destroying the identity of the club.seth plum said:
So there are a variety of comments, my one is one of many and I mention the centering of the badge, which has indeed been mentioned by others. Am I the only one talking bollocks on this thread, or is there a reason you single me out?Henry Irving said:
You do talk bollocks Seth, it's a shirt FFSseth plum said:The sponsors name dominates the badge because the badge is central now.
If the home shirt is on the same lines my personal opinion is that it is a diminution of our identity.
I wonder if it is actually a Charlton fan who signs off on this type of thing.
New third kitThe Red Robin said:Sunderland away first game I'm assuming we'll wear blue? Or is there a new third kit as well?
Lots of people like it, lots of others don't, your the only one blowing it so vastly out of proportion while missing, like most others it seems to be fair, the subtle nod to the protests. And yes, Hummel knew.
The new kit diminishes the club badge because it is central, and the background does not allow the club badge to stand out, the eye is drawn to the most dominant word which is BETDAQ.
If this point of view is blowing it 'vastly out of proportion' or 'bollocks' in your view then fine. I think my view is valid. You are choosing to personalise it, and maybe your mention of what Hummel knew is the clue. You have personal investment of your own, why would that be? Did you help to design or launch the kit?
I have been one of many to react to the kit, but I think your singling of me out from the rest is for spurious reasons.
But it didn't diminish the identity of the club, then or now. Nor dors the 90s sponsors logo being a similar size to the 2018 logo.
You are, as covered end said, just desperate to find something new to moan about so picked on this inconsequential bollocks.
In doing so you missed that this is a black and white kit and Hummel knew that because, in part, I told them.
Like the supporters trust the museum was part of the consultation, not design, on the shirts. This was one of about six options.
But you are hardly clever for "guessing" that as there is bloody video.
I am afraid if there was a video I have not seen it because I am no longer on Valley Pass, and if it was on the club website, which I only rarely look at, it passed me by.
Nor did I say it was destroying the identity of the club, a term you have wrongly attributed to me.
If the issue is so inconsequential to you, I don't understand why you took the trouble to lie about what I said.0 -
In order to be clear this is what I posted yesterday:MrOneLung said:@seth plum
without trawling through the thread I think you said something along lines of 'I wonder if a Charlton fan even signed off on it' when we know the museum was involved in the consulting of the kit design.
The sponsors name dominates the badge because the badge is central now.
If the home shirt is on the same lines my personal opinion is that it is a diminution of our identity.
I wonder if it is actually a Charlton fan who signs off on this type of thing./i>
1 -
diminution
ˌdɪmɪˈnjuːʃ(ə)n/Submit
noun
a reduction in the size, extent, or importance of something.
Like my old boy after I’ve unloaded4 -
It's clear many are wearing rose-tinted glasses.AFKABartram said:The original is a classic, this is a poor attempt to reshuffle its components imo. Would have looked a lot better had badge and Hummel not been central
The original 'classic' is hideous.
Whatever people think of the new version its far better in comparison.7 -
The original classic is one of my all time favourite Charlton shirts.JoshrewCAFC said:
It's clear many are wearing rose-tinted glasses.AFKABartram said:The original is a classic, this is a poor attempt to reshuffle its components imo. Would have looked a lot better had badge and Hummel not been central
The original 'classic' is hideous.
Whatever people think of the new version its far better in comparison.
Hideous it ain't.6 -
Like the new one.
Liked the old one.3 -
Looks alright, but do agree that the badge gets a bit lost. Maybe they could have put a bit of a gap between the cross cross things and the badge Rather than butting them up. It’s a bit different, but without being hideous, so will do. Will get the home one for my three year old though. Last seasons one was great, with proper shorts unlike in previous years and crucially didn’t have Betdaq plastered across the front!0
-
My pal has just shown me Millwall's new shirt - apparently they are now sponsored by a company called 'TW Drainage' - tin hat on waiting for the puns to come flying in!0
-
I'd buy one of those, as soon as the tombstone toothed twunt is gone. Smart. If Hummel want a shirt sales bonanza in 12 months time, they'll make that design next season's 2nd or third strip, acknowledging our efforts and ingenuity in bringing about the regime change.Nug said:
Shame they didn't go for option B. I'd like to see a recount of the votes myself.Henry Irving said:
Black shorts, predominantly white shirt like in the cup final.Nug said:
Think that’s a bit of a stretch, or have I been whooshed! It’s black white and red.Henry Irving said:
I really don't get the #90's influence tack.
The green and white hooped kit I liked
The purple & green striped thing was a grievous monstrosity.
For my 2p worth blue and black stripes have been the best 3rd kits.1 - Sponsored links:
-
half and half colour shirts (like Blackburn or to a similar extent Brizzle Rovers) are horrible kits / combinations2
-
All this talk about buying shirts.
I've just been to a Japanese baseball game in a full stadium with a capacity of 47,000 and every person entering the stadium was given a free replica Hanshin Tigers shirt! OK, a standard Japanese baseball shirt is never going to fit me but what a gesture!
1 -
I wonder what the cost will be? A bit less than Manchester United's I hope. Unbelievable price - talk about screw the fans! https://news.sky.com/story/disgustingly-expensive-manchester-united-fans-react-to-183-price-tag-for-new-home-kit-11439637. £29.95 for a pair of socks!!2
-
you have been able to buy the ridiculously expensive match issue kits for yearscafc-west said:I wonder what the cost will be? A bit less than Manchester United's I hope. Unbelievable price - talk about screw the fans! https://news.sky.com/story/disgustingly-expensive-manchester-united-fans-react-to-183-price-tag-for-new-home-kit-11439637. £29.95 for a pair of socks!!
0 -
I demand a train track design on our new home shirt too!3
-
Anyone going to the kit launch ?0
-
That photo highlights what I've commented on before, that at some point in the 2000s the badge design on the shirts changed slightly, to have a larger centre red section, a slightly narrower black section and slightly different font. I don't recall it ever being mentioned or discussed at the time though.AFKABartram said:The original is a classic, this is a poor attempt to reshuffle its components imo. Would have looked a lot better had badge and Hummel not been central
0 -
It was trademarked (TM). Remember a bit about it in the matchday program at the time. That is when the design was set.killerandflash said:
That photo highlights what I've commented on before, that at some point in the 2000s the badge design on the shirts changed slightly, to have a larger centre red section, a slightly narrower black section and slightly different font. I don't recall it ever being mentioned or discussed at the time though.AFKABartram said:The original is a classic, this is a poor attempt to reshuffle its components imo. Would have looked a lot better had badge and Hummel not been central
0 -
Where’s this new home kit reveal then?0
-
Can’t show you until the minutes are written up...2
